Marin divorce court gets good marks in follow-up report to 2011 state audit

Marin Superior Court has fully complied with a series of recommendations to improve the performance of its family court, state auditors said.

The report, by the California State Auditor, is a follow-up to its 2011 investigation that found numerous flaws in the court's use of mediators and consultants in divorce cases and child-custody disputes.

The audit followed years of criticism by many divorce litigants in California, including complaints of incompetent child-custody mediators and networks of politically connected court consultants. The audit committee focused its inquiry on the family courts in Marin and Sacramento counties, where critics have been especially vehement.

Auditors made more than a dozen recommendations on how the Marin family court could ensure that its mediators were qualified and their bona fides were properly documented. The audit also recommended better documentation of complaints about staff members, consultants, payments and conflicts of interest.

The state auditor reported that Marin had implemented all its recommendations.

"There are no outstanding issues for our court and we're really pleased about that," said Kim Turner, the court's executive director. "The recommendations were all minor recordkeeping issues, so they were really easy to address."

The audit was initiated in 2009 at the request of state Sen. Mark Leno, a Democrat representing Marin and San Francisco, and other lawmakers.

On Friday, Leno said the audit did not address the full range of public criticism about the family courts, and that he continues to hear some complaints from distressed litigants. But he said Marin Superior Court "should be applauded" for implementing all the recommendations.

"This is a well-received follow-up audit, without a doubt," Leno said.

Sacramento County's family court did not fare nearly as well in the report. The court fully implemented some recommendations, partially implemented others, and in some cases took no action at all.

Where no action was taken, the Sacramento court cited budget cuts or a lack of resources.